French court orders Twitter to identify racist and anti-Semitic users

Company could face fines of over $1,300 per day if it doesn't comply.

For months now, the French-language twittersphere has lit up with a rash of racist, homophobic, and anti-Semitic tweets using the hashtags #UnBonJuif (a good Jew), #SiMonFilsEstGay (if my son is gay), and #SiMaFilleRamèneUnNoir (if my daughter brings home a black guy).

Last fall, under pressure from French advocacy group Union of Jewish Students (UEJF), Twitter agreed to remove some offensive tweets. In October 2012, at Berlin’s request, Twitter also suspended a German neo-Nazi account based in the city of Hanover, the first time the company had responded to such a government request.

However, at the time, the UEJF also wanted identifying information of the perpetrators, which Twitter was not prepared to give up. So the group went to court to force the issue.

On Thursday, the Grand Instance Court in Paris ordered Twitter to identify the authors of anti-semitic tweets by creating a mechanism (Google Translate) to alert French authorities to “illegal content,” on its French site “in a visible and easily-accessible [way].”

If Twitter does not comply within two weeks, the American company faces fines of €1,000 ($1,336) per day.

How “free” should “free speech” be?

This isn’t the first time that French courts and laws have butted heads over idiotic racism online. Less than a year ago, then-president Nicolas Sarkozy proposed a law that would make even viewing a hate site a crime.

Here in the United States, we have a Constitutionally protected near-blanket right to free expression. Although incitement to violence is generally not protected, hate speech—no matter how disgusting and awful—is. As we’ve reported before, the operating principle in America has generally been that undesirable speech should be countered with more speech, not less.

That’s not the approach taken in Europe, where hate speech is most definitely not protected. Many European Union states (and even some non-EU countries in Europe) have various types of anti-hate speech legal mechanisms, in part to head off terrorism and far-right violence.

"We're not able to identify the individuals, only Twitter can do so,” Sacha Reingewirtz, UEJF’s vice president, told the French broadcaster, RFI. "We've already tweeted the decision. And we see on Twitter that the decision has apparently triggered a new rise of anti-semitic messages directed against our organization, so there is still work to be done, both by us and Twitter, but we're happy the French justice is now changing the way it is."

176 Reader Comments

Don't get me wrong, I'm not exactly a fan of prejudice, racism, or homophobia. That said, I'm surprised that people, let alone a government, think it's Twitter's responsibility to deal with this. I find it ridiculous they're on the hook for this sort of stuff.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not exactly a fan of prejudice, racism, or homophobia. That said, I'm surprised that people, let alone a government, think it's Twitter's responsibility to deal with this. I find it ridiculous they're on the hook for this sort of stuff.

I agree. While leaving these things up may reflect poorly on Twitter and influence public opinion about the platform, I really don't feel that they should be liable for the speech of others. Also, I generally find the notion of regulating offensive speech to be troubling. The answer to offensive speech should be more speech, not less.

If all of the users requested from this court are based in France (just because the tweets are in French doesn't make that so), then I wouldn't have much of a problem in this circumstance. Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with it at all, but that's unfortunately not up to me. I would love for Twitter to continue on with their stance of protecting anonyminity, it's just a very delicate situation that they're in.

Not that I believe in some slippery slope of using this argument against, say, users in some country where human rights violations are a probability (for example, if the French government were to torture or imprison these users for speaking their mind, or if users were speaking out against the government).

Then again.... following my own logic I kind of agree that the Internet doesn't automatically allow you to break the law in the country you are in, but then again the core issue here speech, and that will have longstanding implications with other countries who do far more than limit what it can describe as hate speech.

Edit: So after considering the implications a bit longer after posting this, I don't agree at all with the limiting of "hate speech". I hope Twitter stays strong, but I'm not really sure what they could do about this, short of blocking France-based IPs.

It always surprises me to hear how backwards and ignorant most of Europe is with regards to free speech.

a lot of it has to do with WW2, they see racist remarks as the possible start of another hitler.

Possible unintentional Godwin, but a Godwin none the less. Time to close the thread.

It's only a Godwin when it's an unrelated comparison. Considering the story includes a reference to Germany removing pro-Nazi tweets, I'd say you really can't discuss the issue without bringing Hitler/Nazism into it.

If hate speech goes unchallenged it could become acceptable. That is unacceptable.

Except attacking the speaker isn't challenging the speech. As the article even points out at the end, it only incites more hate speech, because it comes off as oppressive... and lends a bit of credence to any arguments made. You start pushing people slightly in that direction, gradually over time... and eventually they'll be ripe for the pickings.

If hate speech goes unchallenged it could become acceptable. That is unacceptable.

Just because it is legal (in the US), hate speech doesn't have to be acceptable or go unchallenged.

People much smarter than I realized that there will always be hate speech. You can try punishing people for it, but that will never stop it. The best way to curb hate is with education as usually such people are extremely ignorant or have only been taught hate by their family and those around them and unfortunately don't know much else.

Also, as I start thinking about this more since my earlier post, "hate speech" itself is such a loose term. Hate on other cultures, religions, ethnicities, entire governments, football teams?

As a french person, I do not agree on the definition of free speech we have in most european countries.It is sad that people feel the need to bash on a community but it's sadly the people from the UEJF (union of jewish students) who helped spread these actions...

It's exactly the situation you would have with children:- He started it mom, you have to punish him !- But I was just teasing her mom, she doesn't like it and I find it funny *starts teasing harder*

"That’s not the approach taken in Europe, where hate speech is most definitely not protected. Many European Union states (and even some non-EU countries in Europe) have various types of anti-hate speech legal mechanisms, in part to head off terrorism and far-right violence."

What does the EU have to do with this at any level?

The EU can not dictate laws in member states at all.

In the country where I live, which is a EU member, racism is protected speech.

The actual speech should be handled as laws in the country dictate, but what I have a problem with is the fact that they want Twitter to do the policing and identifying automatically for them. This automated tool they want must never exist. These cases need to be evaluated on a case by case basis and they should bring a court order if they want the identifying details of user. A tool to just let them bypass everything is unacceptable (and is highly unlikely to be completed in the time frame they demand even if Twitter was inclined to make it)

The French are not exactly known for their strong backbone. This doesn't surprise me at all.

The funny thing is, without the French, there would be no US. The 'cowards' thing comes from a selective reading of history, seeing the desire to keep good relations with belgium (hence the maginot line failure) and no desire to invade Iraq a second time (because of imaginary WMDs).

In WW2 not only could the French not stop Germany, with the UK, the US AND Russia against them as well, it still took years. And did you forget 130 years earlier? They had Napoleon. Hardly a country with no backbone.

Besides, how can you call them cowards when they don't feel the need, as citizens, to stop by Ammu-nation on the way to the store to 'feel safe'?

Edit: French grammar. Probably still not right; it has been quite some time since high school.

But French from France is very distinctive. Like when you see someone writing "bloody hell", you know he's British. Besides, it's not like there aren't any other clues to where you live on your Twitter feed. Just talking about typically French stuff is probably a good indicator that you're French.

a lot of it has to do with WW2, they see racist remarks as the possible start of another hitler.

Yes, but doing your best to pretend it doesn't exist helps nobody. If there is hate speech, then you need to deal with the social issues causing people to hate, not try and brush it off. Telling people that they can't say something is legitimizing their speech as something dangerous, when the correct course of action is to fight back with other speech that explains why the hate speech is wrong.

This kind of nonsense (half of German students don't know that Hitler was a dictator) can only happen through a pervasive and misguided censorship regime.

Sure, there probably exists true examples of hate speech but for the most part they use these laws to hunt down people with dissententing opinions.

Faithfully,-k0nsl

Utter BS, holocaust deniers are exactly the kind of people that can easily be countered with arguments yet that doesnt stop them from spreading their lies nor does it ever stop any racist. Arguments do not work with these people.

You don't publicly argue with someone to change their mind, you publicly argue with someone to change the minds of all the bystanders watching. Effectively sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "Shut up! Shut Up! Shut Up!" (censorship) just makes it seem like there is no legitimate counter to their argument.